The High Court has ordered the surrender of Zanas Dziugas to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant, rejecting objections concerning offence correspondence and his absence when a suspended sentence was revoked.
In a judgment delivered on 2 February 2018, Ms Justice Donnelly found that the legal requirements for surrender under section 16(1) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 had been met. The warrant sought his return to serve an aggregate sentence of one year and three months’ imprisonment for two offences. The sentence was first imposed in October 2006 and suspended subject to conditions; the issuing authority said the suspension was revoked in May 2007 after he failed to comply with them.
One offence involved entering a home with others and taking property. The judge found that the described acts corresponded to burglary and theft under Irish law. The dispute concerned the second offence, which Lithuanian law described as “self-willed conduct” in the warrant and “high handedness” in further information. The warrant said Dziugas went to retrieve his mobile phone from V.K. and took V.K.’s television instead.
The respondent argued that the warrant described an assertion of a right to recover his phone, so the facts did not establish the dishonesty required for theft in Ireland. The Minister submitted that taking another person’s property in place of the phone was dishonest. After seeking additional information from the Lithuanian judicial authority, the judge concluded that it showed Dziugas knew he was acting unfairly and criminally. She found that the acts, including the taking of a different item, corresponded to theft under Irish law. The court therefore held that surrender was not barred by the correspondence requirement in section 38.
Dziugas had been present at the 2006 trial and sentencing but absent when the suspension was revoked. The issuing authority guaranteed that, after surrender, he would be served with the revocation decision and could request a retrial or appeal within seven days. The judge found section 45 had been complied with and rejected the argument that surrender would violate his fair-trial or liberty rights. She also found no evidence establishing a real risk of a breach of Article 3 rights or a disproportionate interference with private and family life under Article 8.
The court rejected the points of objection and ordered surrender to a person authorised by Lithuania to receive him. The judgment’s order does not itself determine the outcome of any retrial or appeal he may request after return.